10mm or 12mm will i notice the difference?

IanC

IanC

Messages
1,326
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi as the title says really im looking at buying a tokina 12-24mm as i have heard its meant to be better in terms of image quality than the sigma 10-20mm.

is the tokina wide enough? and if anyone could let me know a uk stockist of this lens that would be great too

cheers :)
 
Wide enough for what? 12mm (20mm equiv) is very wide, but maybe 3 or 4 times last year I wanted wider, and for interior 10mm (16mm equiv) would be really needed.
Typically 12-24mm is very versatile UWA, mk2 is better than mk1 if you work in with contra-light, including brighter street lights and moon (there is some ghosting with mk1, but can be cleaned in PS).
Tokina 11-16mm is even better and wider so it may be a better option.
 
The wider the better IMO - I have the sigma and love it. Apparently if you're concerned about distortion with it, just zoom to 12mm and it's pretty much gone anyway, so you have the best of both worlds.
 
Check out Warehouse Express for both the Tokina and the Sigma
 
I'd have a serious look at the 11-16 Tokina if the money is not a problem as the constant f2.8 is nice and useful and the lens is as sharp as a tack.
 
Sorry should of said i will be using this lens for mainly landscape photography.

thanks for the advice so far
 
IanC said:
Sorry should of said i will be using this lens for mainly landscape photography.

thanks for the advice so far
Click to expand...

Read the "bible" by prophet Rockwell first:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

and then decide if you can make the best use of it and how wide it needs to be. Most people could do with 24-70mm, and then you can always stitch panoramas with hugin if you rarely need to go wide (or need high res)

3835584314_32385f15ec.jpg


made it with hugin, shot at 24mm (before I got my Tokina). 7925 x 3567 and very sharp and perfectly straight.
 
daugirdas said:
Read the "bible" by prophet Rockwell first:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

and then decide if you can make the best use of it and how wide it needs to be. Most people could do with 24-70mm, and then you can always stitch panoramas with hugin if you rarely need to go wide (or need high res)

3835584314_32385f15ec.jpg


made it with hugin, shot at 24mm (before I got my Tokina). 7925 x 3567 and very sharp and perfectly straight.
Click to expand...

Thats an option i hadnt considered thankyou
 
The Tokina 12-24 is sharper than the Sigma 10-20. (had the Tamron 11-18, Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 10-24 before I bought the Tokina (twice!))

As for if you are going to miss 10-12mm then it all depends on if you can walk back a few feet before taking the photo :)
 
How about the Canon 10-22. whilst not such a fast lens (3.5-4.5) it is a truly stunning lens. I often borrow a friends and i love it. Shame its the most expensive.
 
micloi said:
The Tokina 12-24 is sharper than the Sigma 10-20. (had the Tamron 11-18, Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 10-24 before I bought the Tokina (twice!))

As for if you are going to miss 10-12mm then it all depends on if you can walk back a few feet before taking the photo :)
Click to expand...

Lol, thats not how UWA lenses work!!! (that Ken Rockwell article posted on this thread explains how to use them!).

As per my above post, the 2mm DOES make a difference.
 
dunganick said:
How about the Canon 10-22. whilst not such a fast lens (3.5-4.5) it is a truly stunning lens. I often borrow a friends and i love it. Shame its the most expensive.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reccomendation but i have a nikon d90 so im not sure this lens would work on my camera
 
I got the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and am still getting to grips with using a LWA lens, but it's a lovely bit of kit.

Don't see it being particularly useful for landscape though - it just pushes everything further away! It's good for having a foreground subject/object you want to focus on but include its environment, or buildings when you can't get far away from them. But I'd go for something more mid-zoom for landscapes personally.
 
AnnaV said:
I got the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and am still getting to grips with using a LWA lens, but it's a lovely bit of kit.

Don't see it being particularly useful for landscape though - it just pushes everything further away! It's good for having a foreground subject/object you want to focus on but include its environment, or buildings when you can't get far away from them. But I'd go for something more mid-zoom for landscapes personally.
Click to expand...

Where did you buy yours from anna? reading up about it some people think its a good landscape lens and some people dont. :bonk:
 
One Stop Digital. I've had two lenses from them and have been pleased with price, delivery time and the quality.
 
I have a Sigma 12-24mm which I use for landscape shots (on an APS-C camera) but wide angle lenses are not just for getting it all in, another use is to get up close and enjoy the effects you can create.
 
IanC said:
Hi as the title says really im looking at buying a tokina 12-24mm as i have heard its meant to be better in terms of image quality than the sigma 10-20mm.
Click to expand...
I'd heard the opposite myself. I decided to go with the Sigma 10-20mm and don't regret it for an instant. Great lens.
 
daugirdas said:
Read the "bible" by prophet Rockwell first:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
Click to expand...

Don't forget to read the bit on his site that says..

Ken Rockwell said:
While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector or sense of humor, please treat this entire site as the work of fiction. This site it is the product of my own imagination, not fact.
Click to expand...
I take most things he says with a pinch of salt, althought there are some grains of truth in many things he says.
 
The Sigma 10-20mm will focus closer than the Tokina 11-16mm, but the Tokina is faster, so more useful for "environmental portraits".
 
Its funny to see the two gurus in one thread....

In the blue corner, weighing in at xxxxx lbs is the Tamer of Telephoto, the Exposure Enhancer, the the mighty Bob "the Cannon" Atkins!

In the (much too saturated) red corner, weighing slightly less is the Ninja of Nikon, the Violator of Vividness, Ken "make it up as we go along" Rockwell!

Seriously, BA Bob is a worthy read and if you have Canon a site you should be bookmarking. Ken "the kock" is somewhere worth avoiding really. There's better photographic advice available elsewhere.... this forum included!
 
Ken Rockwell is entertaining though and he takes good pictures. Maybe he's the Top Gear of the photographic world.
 
Simple question - would i see a noticeable difference in width between my 18-55 kit lens and the Tokina 12-24 ?

also would the image quality be significantly better?
 
Yes and yes.
 
IanC said:
Simple question - would i see a noticeable difference in width between my 18-55 kit lens and the Tokina 12-24 ?

also would the image quality be significantly better?
Click to expand...

Massively better on both counts.
 
You'd notice a difference for sure.

24mm on a DX body is about a 52° field of view (in the X axis)
20mm on a DX body is about 61°
18mm on a DX body is about 66°
12mm on a DX body is about 89°
10mm on a DX body is about 99°

fieldofview.gif

I put various focal lengths on there so you get a rough idea with the Sigma 10-20, the Tokina 12-24, and 18mm on your current lens.

Basically, the shorter your focal length gets, the greater the increase in field of view per extra mm you take away.
 
Thanks guys, and thats a really good example john thankyou

im now looking at the nikon 10-24mm as a possible option, anyone got any experience of this lens?
 
I must say, I had the Tok 12-24 and whilst it is a really stunning lens in every way, I really did notice the difference between 10 and 12mm.

I've sold it now, and I have the Tamron 10-24mm.
Just as sharp, build quality not quite as good as the Tok.........
 
I did some reading up on the 10-24mm when I was researching which to go for myself, and many people I chatted to who owned both it and the Sigma 10-20mm preferred the Sigma.

Overall the feedback I was getting that was that the Sigma was an overall sharper lens with less distortion and CA. Also, given that the Nikon is about double the price for the sake of only 1/3 of a stop extra speed, the Sigma was the one to go for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top